In Cormier’s suit, Kallman gives background about what occurred during her Feb. 28 visit to the Midland gym.

On that day, Cormier — who had been a member for one month — went to the gym to exercise and came into contact with a “man” inside an open common area of the women’s locker room, the documents state. She left the locker room and notified the front desk that a “man” was using the women’s locker room, and was told the gym’s policy is that people are allowed to use the corresponding facilities of whatever sex they identify with.

There were no signs or posters warning that men would be allowed to use the women’s locker room, and nothing on the topic in Cormier’s membership agreement, so she contacted the Planet Fitness corporate office to inquire. Corporate staff referenced the gym’s “no judgement policy,” and echoed the desk worker’s statement regarding using the corresponding facilities of whatever sex a person identifies with.

Cormier went back to the gym from March 2 to March 4, and warned other women about the policy.

Beale’s opinion states Cormier’s claims on numerous issues centered on the concept of what could have occurred, rather than stating sexual harassment actually occurred. Cormier and the transgender woman were in a common area of the locker room, which is open to other patrons, and not an area where a reasonable person would expect to be secluded.

Cormier’s suit does not state she was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances or communication of a sexual nature. “Instead it asserts what could happen as a result of defendants’ policy,” of being a judgment free zone, the opinion states. “There is no disparate treatment because everyone is treated the same by the policy.”

As far as retaliation, the opinion states the gym simply exercised its contractual right to terminate her membership as a result of her complaint about the company policy, which is not illegal in nature.

Beale also found there was no intentional infliction of emotional distress in the case.

Regarding the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Cormier claimed Planet Fitness violated the act by representing that there were locker rooms for men and women, and failing to disclose that members could use those corresponding to their self identification gender because she would have acted on the knowledge.

“That is, she would not have joined the gym if she had known about the policy. In fact, plaintiff continued to use the facilities, including the locker rooms, after learning of the policy and the possible presence of a self identified female. Plaintiff cannot honestly sustain a claim that she would not have joined the gym if she knew of the ‘judgement free zone’ policy instituted by defendants, as her actions clearly indicate otherwise,” the opinion states.

In the opinion, Beale pointed out his ruling had to with the legal issues of the case, rather than associated side issues — namely, rights for those identifying themselves as transgender.